Re: SD5 - Namespaces (Implementation questions)

James Clark <jjc@jclark.com> writes:
> At 10:03 18/05/97 GMT, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
> > I regard namespaces as *the* critical problem of the 5 questions - the
> >others can all be managed in some way at present; namespaces can't.
> 
> I strongly agree with this.

[discussion of architectural forms...]
> >  Currently it ('it' 
> >refers to the universal solution) has the following drawbacks.
> >(a) It's not easy to understand, and I don't. [Several people have both 
> >talked to me and posted explanations for which many thanks, but I'm a slow 
> >learner.]
> 
> If you gave some detail about what it is you don't understand, maybe
> somebody could try to explain.
> 
> >(b) There is no simple introdcution with examples.
> >(c) There is no inexpensive working system that I can play around with.
> 
> SP has supported AFs for some time.

James,

I must agree with Peter's point (b), in that while I've benefited from
the gracious efforts of several individuals try to explain to me AFs,
I still don't feel I've gotten an arm around it.

Perhaps if one doesn't already exist, someone could write an AF
tutorial with examples, similar to Steve Pepper's paper on LINK, which
did me a world of good (and probably brought headaches to those who
then had to deal with my newly-armed neurons...)

I think an online AF tutorial would be a wonderful help for many of us,
particularly as we move forward with XML designs.

Murray

...........................................................................
Murray Altheim, SGML Grease Monkey                  <altheim[@]eng.sun.com>
Member of Technical Staff, Tools Development & Support
Sun Microsystems, 2550 Garcia Ave., MS UMPK17-102, Menlo Park, CA 94043 USA
         "Give a monkey the tools and he'll build a typewriter."

Received on Monday, 19 May 1997 13:03:48 UTC